Zig Zag Holdings LLC v. Hubbard et al

Filing 61

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 60 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/23/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 13-2643 SI

ZIG ZAG HOLDINGS LLC,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff,
v.
GLEN K. HUBBARD, et al.,
Defendants.

/

16
17

On June 11, 2014, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s

18

motion for summary judgment. On June 18, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that

19

order, contending that the Court overlooked the parties’ arguments about plaintiff’s ability to terminate

20

the Lynn Simon licenses.

21

As an initial matter, plaintiff’s motion is procedurally improper. See Civil Local Rule 7-9. In

22

any event, the Court did not overlook plaintiff’s arguments about the ability to terminate the Lynn

23

Simon licenses. As the Court noted in the summary judgment order, plaintiff argued that the licenses

24

were terminated by Glen Hubbard, and defendants argued that after Hubbard’s lawyer sent the letter

25

terminating the licenses, Hubbard and Simon resolved their differences and that to the extent the licenses

26

were ever terminated, they were reinstated and remain in place today. Thus, the Court found that there

27

were disputes of fact as to whether Hubbard terminated the Simon licenses. As the Court further noted

28

in the order, neither party addressed the ability of plaintiff, as the current owner of the service mark, to

1

terminate the licenses, and whether plaintiff has, in fact, terminated those licenses.1 Instead, all of the

2

briefing centered on whether Glen Hubbard did or did not terminate the licenses prior to filing for

3

bankruptcy.

4

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Docket No. 60.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
Dated: June 23, 2014
9

SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

It appears that it is plaintiff’s position, as now articulated in the motion for reconsideration,
that plaintiff “now holds a right to terminate the license.” Motion at 8:9. Whether plaintiff has, in fact,
done so is not in the record before the Court and was not discussed in the summary judgment briefing.
The parties shall be prepared to discuss this matter in their pretrial papers and at the pretrial conference.
2